Town Panel Backs Officers' Firing

Issue May Be Settled In Court

SMITHFIELD — Two fired Smithfield police officers should not be reinstated but should be awarded 30 days' severance pay because they were let go so abruptly, a town grievance panel ruled Tuesday.

Former Sgt. Edward Hill and former Officer David Richardson were fired Sept. 8. They claimed they were fired because they had uncovered evidence of corruption in the Smithfield Police Department.

The three-member panel, which heard five hours of testimony last week, was the last step in the town's grievance procedure. But either the former officers or the town could appeal the decision to Isle of Wight Circuit Court. The former officers could also sue the town to try and get their jobs back.

Hill said that in the next few weeks the two would decide what, if anything, they would do. ``Definitely, I was disappointed,'' he said of the decision.

Richardson could not be reached for comment. Moody E. ``Sonny'' Stallings, their attorney, was on vacation Tuesday, but he has suggested the controversy would ``end up in a courtroom.''

Smithfield officials, who called Hill and Richardson ``loose cannons,'' declined to comment. The town already hired new officers to replace the pair.

The panel deliberated for about an hour Tuesday before issuing its unanimous ruling upholding the terminations. The panel members were Robert P. Taylor and L. Warner Dashiell, both Isle of Wight County farmers, and Herbert W. DeGroft, director of personnel at Smithfield Packing Co.

Much of the evidence the panel heard last week revolved around six unserved felony warrants from 1988, which were found in Police Chief Mark A. Marshall's old office. The panel appeared to base its decision largely on the warrant issue, though panel members left Smithfield Town Hall before their decision was made public. Their decision was explained only in the brief, written form they filled out and turned over to town officials.

Hill and Richardson said the unserved warrants, which charged a town official's relative with drug trafficking, indicated illegal activity on the part of police officers who apparently didn't want to arrest the official's relative.

Marshall fired both officers several days after he'd been told by another employee that the two were showing copies of the warrants around the police department.

Hill was fired because he removed the warrants from a confidential file cabinet he'd been told not to open, Marshall said. Richardson was fired because he refused to speak with Marshall, walking out of the office as the chief tried to question him about the warrants.

The two admitted they ignored Marshall's order to hand over the documents, but they said following his order would have been tantamount to participating in the corruption.

But the panel, citing rulings from Commonwealth's Attorney W. Parker Councill and the State Police, disagreed.

Councill said the warrants weren't served because there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute the suspect; State Police investigated the police department but found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

The panel also said the warrants were police property and Hill and Richardson had no authority to remove them from Marshall's office.

The two men deserved 30 days' severance pay, however, because of the abrupt way Marshall fired them, the panel said. The panel's statement did not specify exactly which of Marshall's actions they did not like or how Marshall should have handled the situation.